On 7/27/2010 4:45 AM, Nicholas Piël wrote:
I am not really sure about this, wouldn't it be best to name the socket after
the role the socket plays?
For example, in a butterfly example the worker nodes have two types of socket
they collect from the upstream and push their info downstream. This clearly
shows the unidirectional flow of messages.
Agreed: This is the case highlighted by "REQ"/"REP". The endpoint type
currently named "REQ"uest is the one which receives replies: it is named
for the role of the node and not the function of the socket.
I want to re-suggest the notion of aliases here. Nice, clear,
unambiguous /aliases/ for documentation and introduction purposes.
"ZMQ_SOCKET_THAT_SENDS_REQUESTS_AND_THEN_RECEIVES_RESULTS ('ZMQ_REQ' for
short)"
Ok - maybe not that long ;)This is not about requiring paradigm shifts
or better documentation,
it's about using consistent names that provide some kind of model the
poor developer can depend on.
The names Mato and I proposed for the pipeline pattern were:
ZMQ_BF_CLIENT, ZMQ_WORKER, ZMQ_COLLECTOR
I really think these would cause LOTS of troubles. Even in this specifically
example you mostly have a server that produces items to be named client.
Agreed, but I think the solution is to name sockets after the role the
socket plays in communicating.
- Oliver
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
